News 
 Local News 
 News 
 Entertainment 
 Australia review: Good, but no classic, and way, way too long 

Australia review: Good, but no classic, and way, way too long

18/11/2008 8:47:00 AM
IN WHAT has to be the most hyped and self-consciously local film since 1984's The Man From Snowy River, the anxiously anticipated Australia is not a bad film. But it's far from a great one, and certainly not one destined to be a classic.

That's not to say it won't be popular, possibly wildly so. The film has broad appeal, particularly to the chick-flick market, with its sweeping, overlong melodramatic saga about cattle drives, the stolen generations, the bombing of Darwin and Hugh Jackman's abs. The story involves a prissy English woman (Nicole Kidman) who, with the help of a stockman known enigmatically as "The Drover" (Jackman), tries saving her troubled cattle station from a greedy cattleman (Bryan Brown) and his evil relative (David Wenham).

Blended into the tale is the touching story of a little boy of mixed blood, who serves as a symbol for the stolen generations and racism.

The film is fine, and never boring but, boy, is it overlong. At a mammoth 165 minutes it feels too much like a work-in-progress. There is a lot of narrative flab and longueurs in the first two hours and the film often has the pace of a steamroller with engine trouble.

Luhrmann also seems so eager to trowel on the Aussie cliches — obviously to appeal to the tourist markets! — that Australia is often simply irritating. The word "crikey" is spouted so often the film often sounds like a tribute to Steve Irwin.

As for the visuals, the film is pretty — you cannot point a camera at the outback and not get something impressive — but there are only so many wide shots of the Aussie outback that the human mind can stand.

In terms of spectacle, the film boasts one impressive sequence involving a stampede of cattle heading for a cliff. Lovely stuff. On the flipside, however, the much-touted bombing of Darwin by the Japanese is way too brief and resembles off-cuts from the movie Pearl Harbor.

Performances are fine throughout, with Wenham as the bad guy cattle heir putting in the best work. As the quintesential outback Aussie bloke, Jackman is a sort of ocker liberal who stands up for women and the right of blackfellas to drink in pubs. He's good value, as usual.

Australia is a far bigger deal for Kidman, though, in that she finally stars in a film that people might actually be interested in seeing.

Since her well-deserved Oscar win for The Hours Kidman has been box-office poison after such disasters as Bewitched, The Stepford Wives, The Invasion, Fur and Margot at the Wedding. If the film connects, it might signal a badly needed career turnaround for her.

More importantly, local films with black themes or major indigenous characters tend to do poorly, so if Australia succeeds here it could represent a breakthrough. We've always had trouble dealing with racial issues on film, so, in that regard, the film could be a landmark.

If only Baz had made the damn thing shorter by at least half an hour.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Congrats on being the only review out there. Confirms what we all suspected.
Posted by andrew on 18/11/2008 12:12:50 PM
ahhh thats interesting i was hoping for sweeping motion picture epic that would stand the test of time
Posted by Katura on 18/11/2008 1:26:40 PM
I live in the town of Bowen, and I am so sick of hearing about this movie. Everywhere I look are reminders about the movie- The big "Bowenwood" sign painted up on a massive watertower, its all over the news, and strangely enough, the banners welcoming Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman etc. still havn't been taken down...
Posted by Julian on 18/11/2008 5:45:01 PM
As a patriotic immigrant, I feel it's my duty to see the bloody thing before I go see Bond. I've always felt Aussies make great flicks. Hopefully this one will surprise me.
Posted by Daveo on 18/11/2008 7:13:49 PM
Snowy River was 1982, not 1984...if you're going to talk movie history then you need to get your dates right.
Posted by Johnnyboy007 on 19/11/2008 12:27:23 PM
I would rather have experimental pile surgery than sit through 3 hours of Baaaaaaaaaaz directing with his head up his a*se (AGAIN). Crikey indeed. Give me a real film any day.
Posted by Buckley's Chance on 19/11/2008 7:33:04 PM
A lukewarm review from Schembri means that I will enjoy this film. 99.99% of the time - I disagree with his reviews so I am confident I will enjoy Australia and will barrack for it at next years Oscars
Posted by bettestreep on 20/11/2008 8:00:40 AM
I really dont like the fact that Baz named his film "Australia". Although it is no doubt true that this was what life was like for many Australians, its only one aspect. Its silly because that is not how i see my Australia.
Posted by Gaston on 24/11/2008 9:02:01 PM
I went to the premiere and it was brilliant. A truly enjoyable movie - funny, and moving. Too long? I enjoyed every minute of it.
Posted by Jay on 25/11/2008 2:35:37 PM
I went to the premiere and it was brilliant. A truly enjoyable movie - funny, and moving. Too long? I enjoyed every minute of it.
Posted by Jay on 25/11/2008 2:35:38 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

9:50 AM AEDT | Food poisoning in Australia is on the increase largely because people are eating out more often and new strains of food-borne bacteria have emerged.
Yourguide to Your Toyota
Road safety tips
 
Australia Day in the Capital
 
Click here!
 
Classifieds
 
CT Home Delivery
 
Babies of 2008 - click here to find out more
 
Outdoor Art Show
 
Photo Sales - click here
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...